Nuclear World War: The Mounting Threat

Vladimir Putin, Paul Craig Roberts, Donald Trump and other world observers continue to warn about the growing threat of major nuclear war. NATO’s escalation at Russia’s borders has created a volatile arms imbalance, a provocation contrived by Western leaders under the pretext of defending Europe against a threat of Russian or Iranian aggression.

Let’s be clear. Putin’s Russia poses no threat to Europe. Nor has there been any recent Russian aggression. Ukraine was destabilized by an American-sponsored coup. After Crimea voted to join Russia, Putin adopted the peninsula to protect Moscow’s strategic Black Sea port, which the post-coup Kiev regime threatened to block. Donbass voted and fought for independence without intervention by the Russian government. And the Iranian threat would hardly be deterred by a NATO buildup in the Baltic.

Do the transnational corporate powers expect to make money off of an East-West conflagration? If so, how they will spend that money, after the northern hemisphere has been plunged into nuclear winter?

At a discussion with representatives of various media outlets, Putin urges journalists to report genuinely on the impending nuclear war. Nobody has anything to gain from a nuclear stand-off against Russia. The power hungry decision-makers are few in number, but powerful enough to have subverted mainstream media to misrepresent Russia as the main threat to international security. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, in a series of confused events, Soviet submariner Vasili Arkhipov refused his captain’s orders by not firing a missile against the United States. By morning, Khruschev and Kennedy had come to a mutual agreement. The world never truly understood how close we came to mutually assured destruction. It is important to remember that the rational actions of ONE person can avoid a disaster.

Do you remember how close we came to Armageddon in the early 1960s when Washington put nuclear missiles in Turkey on the Soviet Union’s border and the Soviets responded by putting nuclear missiles in Cuba? Fortunately, at that time we had an intelligent president instead of a cipher. President John F. Kennedy pulled us back from the brink and was assassinated by his own government for his service to humanity.

For a number of years I have been warning that the recklessness of a half century ago has reappeared in spades. The crazed, insane, nazified, neoconized government in Washington and Washington’s despicable Europeran vassal states, especially the UK, Germany, and France, are driving the world to extinction in nuclear war. See, for example, Washington Drives World Toward War – Paul Craig Roberts. This is the most obvious fact of our time. Yet only the Russian government addresses Washington’s threat to life on earth.

Why is this?

Why was there no debate—or even mention—in the presidential nomination primaries of the road to nuclear war on which Washington has the world? [Karl Pomeroy: Perhaps Roberts has forgotten. Trump did say in a Republican debate that the biggest threat we face is nuclear war.]

Washington is putting its nuclear missiles on Russia’s borders, conducting war games on Russia’s borders, and stationing its Navy off Russia’s coasts in the Black and Baltic seas. To cover up its reckless, irresponsible aggression toward a nuclear power, Washington accuses Russia of aggression.

The presstitute media—the New York Times, the Washington Post, Fox “News,” CNN, and the rest of the despicable whores repeat the lie over and over until the Western populations are brainwashed.

Do you suppose the Russians, who know what is happening, are going to just sit there until they are so completely surrounded by nuclear missiles that they have to surrender?

Unless you believe this, you had best get busy saving your life and the life of our planet. Do not expect political leaders to do this for you. There are no political leaders in public office anywhere in the West, only paid puppets of powerful interests groups.

Do not expect experts, most of whom are dependent on these same interest groups, to bring influence to bear on government and media.

There is no one but us.

Quemado Institute Conclusion By Karl Pomeroy

Donald Trump (–Business Insider)

Paul Craig Roberts may not realize it, but our best hope for world peace is the election of Donald Trump. Trump’s noninterventionist foreign policy, his expicit recognition of the nuclear threat in a recent Republican debate, and his repeatedly emphasized desire for friendship with Russia, all attest to his will for peace.

“I’d like to talk today about how to develop a new foreign policy direction for our country, one that replaces randomness with purpose, ideology with strategy, and chaos with peace.”

“My foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people and American security above all else.” [Karl Pomeroy: Vladimir Putin would advocate precisely this policy for Russia. Indeed, every nation’s government should employ this policy, including those of Germany, Britain, Greece and all members of the European Union.]

“Unfortunately, after the Cold War our foreign policy veered badly off course…. Logic was replaced with foolishness and arrogance, which led to one foreign policy disaster after another.” [Karl Pomeroy: These complaints are much like those made by critical analysts the world over, including Paul Craig Roberts, The Saker, Ron Paul, Finian Cunningham, Andrew Korybko, Dmitry Minin and more.]

“We went from mistakes in Iraq to Egypt to Libya, to President Obama’s line in the sand in Syria. Each of these actions have helped to throw the region into chaos and gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper…. It all began with a dangerous idea that we could make western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interests in becoming a western democracy. We tore up what institutions they had and then were surprised at what we unleashed. Civil war, religious fanaticism, thousands of Americans just killed [and] lives, lives, lives wasted…. The vacuum was created that ISIS would fill.”

“[T]he legacy of the Obama-Clinton interventions will be weakness, confusion and disarray, a mess. We’ve made the Middle East more unstable and chaotic than ever before. We left Christians subject to intense persecution and even genocide…. Our actions in Iraq, Libya and Syria have helped unleash ISIS, and we’re in a war against radical Islam, but President Obama won’t even name the enemy, and unless you name the enemy, you will never ever solve the problem.”

“After Secretary Clinton’s failed intervention in Libya, Islamic terrorists in Benghazi took down our consulate and killed our ambassador and three brave Americans. Then, instead of taking charge that night, Hillary Clinton decided to go home and sleep…. Clinton blames it all on a video, an excuse that was … proven to be absolutely a total lie. Our ambassador was murdered and our secretary of state misled the nation.”

“We desire to live peacefully and in friendship with Russia and China. We have serious differences with these two nations, and must regard them with open eyes, but we are not bound to be adversaries. We should seek common ground based on shared interests. Russia, for instance, has also seen the horror of Islamic terrorism. I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia from a position of strength only is possible, absolutely possible. Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries. Some say the Russians won’t be reasonable. I intend to find out. If we can’t make a deal under my administration, a deal that’s great — not good, great — for America, but also good for Russia, then we will quickly walk from the table. It’s as simple as that. We’re going to find out.

“Fixing our relations with China is another important step — and really toward creating an even more prosperous period of time. China respects strength and by letting them take advantage of us economically, which they are doing like never before, we have lost all of their respect.” — Donald Trump

“The so-called Islamic State – ISIS – threatens the security of the entire region and beyond, including our own country and our allies. Secretary of State Kerry was right to say that ISIS is committing genocide, and there is no doubt in my mind that the United States must continue to participate in an international coalition to destroy this barbaric organization.

“While obviously much needs to be done, so far our effort has had some important progress, as airstrikes have degraded ISIS’ military capacity, and the group has lost more than 20 percent of its territory in the past year. So we are making some progress. [Karl Pomeroy: So far, Bernie’s watered-down assessment appears to support current American policy.]

“But we are entering a difficult period in the campaign against ISIS.

“The government in Baghdad has yet to achieve a sustainable political order that unites Iraq’s various ethnic and sectarian factions, which has limited its ability to sustain military victories against ISIS. Unless there is a united government, it’s going to be hard to be effective in destroying ISIS.” [Karl Pomeroy: This is quite an understatement.]

“More inclusive, stable governance in Iraq will be vital to inflict a lasting defeat on ISIS. Otherwise, ISIS could regain its influence or another, similar organization may spring up in its place.” [Karl Pomeroy: A meaningless platitude.]

“In Syria, the challenges are even more difficult. The fractured nature of the civil war there has often diluted the fight against ISIS – exemplified by the Russian airstrikes that prioritized hitting anti-Assad fighters rather than ISIS. And, just like in Iraq, ISIS cannot be defeated until the groups that take territory from ISIS can responsibly govern the areas they take back. Ultimately, this will require a political framework for all of Syria.” [Karl Pomeroy: Bernie has criticized the Russian airstrike strategy, implying the Democratic candidate might be anti-Assad himself. His statements are sufficiently ambiguous as to escape interpretation.]

“The U.S. must also play a greater role disrupting the financing of ISIS and efforts on the Internet to turn disaffected youth into a new generation of terrorists. While the U.S. has an important role to play in defeating ISIS, that struggle must be led by the Muslim countries themselves on the ground. I agree with King Abdullah of Jordan who a number of months ago that made it clear what is going on there right now is nothing less than a battle for the soul of Islam and the only people who will effectively destroy ISIS there will be Muslim troops on the ground. So what we need is a coalition of those countries.” [Karl Pomeroy: Does Sanders really believe only Muslims can destroy ISIS? This is a recipe for failure.]

News from Novorossiya

News from Novorossiya

Quemado institute Syria Page

How Did the Syrian Kurds Get Soviet Arms? - By Sophie Mangal - February 16, 2018 - A video showing Nour al-Din al-Zenki militants hijacking a tanker and a truck with smuggled arms and weapons ... CLICK TO READ MORE>>

Quemado Institute Syria Page

US supports Kurds in Syria: Turks react - By Mehmet Ersoy - January 27, 2018 - The Operation Olive Branch in northern Syria started five days ago. Five days ago the Afrin region became a possible hotbed of a full-scale . . . CLICK TO READ MORE>>

News from Novorossiya

The Silent War in the Donbas - Frontline Accounts of Volunteers Fighting in the Trenches - VIDEO by Vesti News - December 23, 2017

Meta

Blogroll

Censorship Looms Over European Union

Quemado Institute editor Karl Pomeroy received a legal threat today in response to a comment he posted on the Russia Insider website about the rise of the R********d banking family. The comment did not mention race, but was of historical content. The threatener accused Karl of “spreading Nazi propaganda,” then repeated the full text of the German Criminal Code Section 130, which outlaws inciting “hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins,” which Karl’s comment did not do. A similar law, it was claimed, is now in force in 11 other European countries and carries a penalty of up to five years. The wording of the law is so vague, it could be applied to any criticism of those in power. If a political analyst can accidentally “violate” this totalitarian decree, there is no freedom of speech or press in Europe.